In other news, GOP Crossroads is developing a IE add-on that will auto-blacklist any content deemed "liberal" or is in anyway contradictory to the cause. The program known as "FOXFACTS" will also scan incoming e-mails with liberal or centrist slants, and will be redacted or re-written with pre-determined content, ensuring the user only sees the ideological facts they desire.

Of course it will be developed by the same crowd that developed Orca, so the chances of it actually working are nonexistent.

Only if they continue to let black people work on the project as programmers.

Really they should have seen it coming, I mean look at the name "Orca". Orcas are mostly black and clearly can not be trusted.

I think that cat is out of the bag. Have you looked at the pictures of his Grandparents? The ones from Kansas? Chris Rock made the joke that they are so white they had to have sunglasses on to look at each other because of the glare they created from the sun.

Sadly, McCain has spent the last 4 years embarrassing himself with his petulant sore-loser status over 2008. Maybe Carmona takes another shot in a few years, especially since McCain will undoubtedly have another bruising Tea Party primary challenge.

All the SRBs I know are mad because they say the initial cause for the attack was the video, whilst the reality was that it was just a plain old attack. THEY LIED?!?!

Anyways, this is a big deal, apparently.

I can buy the Obama Administration's excuse of "confusion" a lot more than the Bush Administration on WMDs.

But we can't expect the same standards of truthfulness. Just truthiness.

Which is unfortunate because it obscures legitimate questions (particularly of the CIA) of how this happened and why. Instead Republicans seem more concerned with derailing a nomination that hasn't happened yet of someone who, IMHO, would make a good Secretary of State.

I'll repost my thoughts from the Petraeus thread, as this exerpt explains a bit more about Benghazi and the SRB's obsession:

I wrote:

The GOP, specifically TP, have pulled out anything under the sun to personally link the Ambassador's death to the President. First came "not calling it an act of terror". Then came the CIA allegedly ordering the consulate security to stand down during the attack.

The biggest issue they're claiming is that the White House was allegedly watching the attack by live feed for most of its fifteen hour entirety. There are claims that the AFRICOM commander had multiple special forces units ready to move in for a rescue/reinforcement and he was about to move against SECDEF's orders, but was then relieved and arrested by his deputy.

edit: So the tale being spun by the right (especially the hard right) is that we had an action movie's wet dream team of commandos ready to save the day and the evil Socialist, non-American Muslim ordered them to stand down and let the Ambassador die. The current belief I can gather between news articles and the interactions/data streams from people in that political camp is that since they couldn't win the election with it, they can move on to articles of impeachment.

"Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are."

I'm at a loss for what the right expects to get out of Benghazi. There isn't even a coherent narrative of scandal, however contrived that narrative might be.

And there's no apparent motive for a conspiracy here either. Saying it was a video that set things off doesn't help the President. Hell, saying we were attacked by terrorists would probably have given him a bump leading up to the election. So why would he lie about it? The whole thing makes no sense at all.

It also bugs the hell out of me that they are so obsessed with finding some conspiracy on the part of the President that they pretty much gloss over the fact that hey, there were some bad guys who attacked us and maybe they were the ones responsible for the whole thing.

Condoleeza Rice thought it's nonsense. Having been at similar positions she said:

Quote:

“When things are unfolding very, very quickly, it’s not always easy to know what is really going on on the ground,” Rice told Fox News host Greta Van Susteren.

Condi continued: “So there’s a big picture to be examined here. But we don’t have all of the pieces, and I think it’s easy to try and jump to conclusions about what might have happened here. It’s probably better to let the relevant bodies do their work.”

Why the hell would the GOP even want to get near Obama on terrorism issues? It's almost like they think nobody remembers that Bin Laden is dead.

Because he's a muslim and you should know that every muslim is an Al Quaeda terrorist. This is why he organized the attack on the embassy. Of course, he's a dumb terrorist, so he forgot to tur of the camera's.

Seriously, asking for sanity in a party where delphi mind control is an issue is far fetched.

"Speaking on The 700 Club, his show, Robertson said Petraeus’ conduct was understandable because “the man’s off in a foreign land and he’s lonely and here’s a good-looking lady throwing herself at him. He’s a man.”"

From that statement I seriously can't tell which gender Robertson has more contempt for, men and their inability to control their dicks, or women for being predatory whores.

It's because he's obviously a predatory dick who can't control his whores.

Why the hell would the GOP even want to get near Obama on terrorism issues? It's almost like they think nobody remembers that Bin Laden is dead.

Because he's a muslim and you should know that every muslim is an Al Quaeda terrorist. This is why he organized the attack on the embassy. Of course, he's a dumb terrorist, so he forgot to tur of the camera's.

Seriously, asking for sanity in a party where delphi mind control is an issue is far fetched.

More idiotic still about the SRB, and I've said this before but it bears repeating (over, and over, and over, and over): Muslims are evil because TERRAR SHARIA, and yet the only people trying to institute anything like Sharia Law are the Christian Evangelicals on the hard Right who are constantly pushing their Christian version of it. See: Kansas, Texas, no gay marriage (or worse: cleanse the gays), etc.

More idiotic still about the SRB, and I've said this before but it bears repeating (over, and over, and over, and over): Muslims are evil because TERRAR SHARIA, and yet the only people trying to institute anything like Sharia Law are the Christian Evangelicals on the hard Right who are constantly pushing their Christian version of it. See: Kansas, Texas, no gay marriage (or worse: cleanse the gays), etc.

1) "Far Left"? In this country? If I didn't know better, I'd hope he was speaking in relative terms, but I know he's not.2) Is he this much of a hypocrite?3) I completely agree with the his claim... I just think we are talking about different "media operations"

I know that this is just more of the SRB accusing the "far left" of doing what they, themselves, do... but this is just ... I don't know. I don't know why this kind of thing even surprises me still, but it somehow does.

The fact that millions on Fox viewers will completely buy into it only makes it worse.

In the "Rumble 2012" debate with Jon Stewart, Bill O'Reilly talked about how it was "very profitable" for media figures to promote false controversy and partisanship. Which is a perfectly valid statement, but he seemed to have no awareness whatsoever that he was one of them.

I think his debates and appearances with Stewart show O'Reilly to be more rational than most partisan pundits appear, but how he has such a huge blindspot for his own behavior is dumbfounding.

In the context of powerful far-Left corporations promoting ideology, he is absolutely wrong. Name one. Note I said "far-Left" and "powerful". MSNBC and CNN are inarguably just left of Center overall and individual anchors and writers at both organizations are center or even center-Right. DailyKos, ThinkProgress, and MoveOn are not at all powerful by any sense of the phrase. Thus none of these organizations listed fit the mold which is both powerful and far-Left.

In the context of powerful corporations promoting ideology, yes he is absolutely correct. They are both far-Right and powerful. Clear Channel and Fox Entertainment, to name two.

In the "Rumble 2012" debate with Jon Stewart, Bill O'Reilly talked about how it was "very profitable" for media figures to promote false controversy and partisanship. Which is a perfectly valid statement, but he seemed to have no awareness whatsoever that he was one of them.

I think his debates and appearances with Stewart show O'Reilly to be more rational than most partisan pundits appear, but how he has such a huge blindspot for his own behavior is dumbfounding.

I keep getting the impression that O'Reilly knows exactly what he's doing and could actually be one of those rare rational conservatives when seperated from the crazy heard. But that could just be me.

In the "Rumble 2012" debate with Jon Stewart, Bill O'Reilly talked about how it was "very profitable" for media figures to promote false controversy and partisanship. Which is a perfectly valid statement, but he seemed to have no awareness whatsoever that he was one of them.

I think his debates and appearances with Stewart show O'Reilly to be more rational than most partisan pundits appear, but how he has such a huge blindspot for his own behavior is dumbfounding.

I keep getting the impression that O'Reilly knows exactly what he's doing and could actually be one of those rare rational conservatives when seperated from the crazy heard. But that could just be me.

If so then he is a great actor. I used to watch the Factor on occasion and that guy seemed to get seriously worked up when arguing about crazy shit.

Yeah. This is what actually pisses me off. Sure, the viewers are deluded, but Fox is not self-deluded. They know exactly what they are doing. That someone would work there and still call themselves a "journalist" makes my stomach turn.

(To be fair, I don't think O'Reilly claims to be a journalist, though he has a degree in broadcast journalism. AFAIK he calls himself a political commentator.)